It's good to see that you corrected this as soon as you noticed it, David.

>>Oh! Pericles, the comma is a typo. The figure was $12,000.000<<

Just a hint. Most people only use two digits for the cents.

But seriously, this is becoming bizarre.

>>What the advertising campaign says about the AFA is that we see the problems caused by religion and we would like people to think about them.<<

That may be what you would like the advertising campaign to say, Mr. President.

What it actually says, in its present form, is that AFA is a shallow-thinking, expedient and fundamentally lazy organization, without a clue as to how to get a message across without fumbling it dreadfully.

Which, considering the importance of the task at hand, is extremely sad.

I sincerely hope that the members vote you out at the next opportunity, and replace you with someone less arrogant, and more willing to listen to constructive advice.

>>The armchair reaction to the intended bus slogans is understandable, expected and frankly, dismissed as irrelevant<<

It still amazes me anyone in your position would think this way.

But I find it even more staggering that you felt it was OK to put those thoughts into this forum for all to see.

Polycarp wrote:

Look at Geneva..it was a theocracy under Calvin.. ONE person was executed. John Servetus and he was already under 2 death sentences by non protestants.”

Dear Polycarp,

The above is an example of dishonesty. I never mentioned Calvin. It is not ok to execute an innocent person even if they are under death threats by Christians of a differing view. I note that you said non-protestants rather than Christians. However, it would have been good if a persecuted person had been given refuge rather than condemned to death. That is reminiscent of the way most Christian countries refused to take in most of the Jews fleeing the Nazis. Japan, a German ally, took in all the Jewish refugees which could get there. Perhaps that is because Japan was a non-Christian country and was not subject to Christian inspired hatred.

One dishonest way of arguing is to set up a straw man, that is something that has not been mentioned, and then argue against it as though it has been mentioned. That is what you have done when you brought in Calvin.

To quote myself:

“There are many religions. Each will claim truth. They all share one characteristic. They think they have THE truth. Then they murder others who do not accept their truth. The Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holocaust and the wars of the Reformation where Christians killed other Christians who had a somewhat different truth are all products of Christian certainty.”

The murders by Christians I mentioned above involved many millions of corpses. Calvin with his tyranny added one more corpse to the stinking mound. I never mentioned Calvin.

I have no argument with the Christianity of Bishop Spong or with that of most Christians. He is secure in his belief, faces the truth of what has happened and has tried to see how other people have viewed Christianity. Foxy’s Christianity seems quite humane.

I think your kind of Christianity with its intolerance and blindness is evil.

I deeply fear your type of Christianity and take comfort that it is only followed by a small group.

The first thing that came to mind on reading the slogan was that the godly would *perceive* it to be an attack ad. I should have said that. It's obviously going to upset the godly. What's the point of that?

You say

"Atheists have been looking for a constructive way to counteract the growing power and irrationality of religion and this looks like it might fit the bill"

Assuming that that's a statement of the foundation's objective, there are plenty of people on this forum who'd be happy to explain how not-constructive upsetting the godly can be. A bit of fun, maybe, but constructive, no.

You also say

"What the advertising campaign says about the AFA is that we see the problems caused by religion and we would like people to think about them"

The slogan does not address the problems caused by religion or prompt people to think about them, thus it says no such thing about the AFA.

There's nothing wrong with the stated objectives IMO, but the slogan won't achieve them.

Pelican,

Society changes both because of pressure groups and because of individuals with different ideas from the accepted.

Are you sure it is not the case that you are not willing to sacrifice a small part of your independent thought by combing with others of like mind, even if it is for a good cause. I’m serious about this, as it is not unusual. What is unusual is for Atheists not being able to see a benefit to society and the world at large when it is poking them in the face. And it is more unusual and disappointing that some excuse their independence by knocking those attempting to do something eliciting change.

Of course my words will not alter the ideas held by those on this forum but it is my words and your words and the words of humanists, secularists, rationalists and Atheist that eat away at society until the reason they present eventually rubs off on future generations.

Pericles,

Can you read? You appear to be having trouble by going over that which I have already explained. I am not going to repeat the mandate of the AFA.

I am open to suggestions that may be better than this campaign, which by the way, is turning into a world wide phenomena, so I have been informed by the London Humanists.

Place your better ideas up for all to see or stop making out you have them? I don’t mean different ideas but ones that will impact the areas we are trying to reach more efficiently and which are more cost effective with a predicted greater quantifiable result. Dodging around this request will only show up your empty rhetoric for what it is. That is, writing for the sake of writing and hoping it will support your view.

chainsmoker, and what slogan will?

It is not the words of the slogan, which annoys people of faith; it is that they find any alternative views confrontational. There is no way not to upset religious people except by acquiescing to their demands. Be thankful the AFA does not. .

David

Sorry David, I don't believe you.

>>I am open to suggestions<<

And this is the reason.

>>The armchair reaction to the intended bus slogans is understandable, expected and frankly, dismissed as irrelevant<<

I think the saddest part is that you have annoyed more atheists than godbotherers.

And that is what you are fated to continue to do, until you decide to listen to other than your own voice.

Although I think that the London bus slogan is a fun idea because apparently there are so many London buses with religious slogans, and the idea for the atheist slogans was rather spontanious; but I doubt that it would have the same effect in Australia.

I can't remember the last time I saw a religious slogan on a Sydney bus.
I see food chain ads, business ads etc.
Perhaps I haven't paid attention, do these ads actually exist?

I wouldn't want to waste thousands of dollars just to state a fact that everybody already knows.
Religious people know why atheists lack a believe in God, but why should they care?
I don't care if people believe in a god or the reasons for their believe if they keep it to themselves and don't try to push their views.

I like the idea CJMorgan came up with, which is to not confront the religious with their belief but to create awareness about church-state connections that should not happen.

"MAKE CHURCH BUSINESSES PAY TAXES LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE" is a good one to start with.

Or perhaps something lovely and positive, something about spirituality without theism.

PS Polycarp, Col Rouge is not an atheist, he believes in God but doesn't care for religion as far as I know.